2018
DOI: 10.1142/s0218196718500480
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Complexity of term representations of finitary functions

Abstract: The clone of term operations of an algebraic structure consists of all operations that can be expressed by a term in the language of the structure. We consider bounds for the length and the height of the terms expressing these functions, and we show that these bounds are often robust against the change of the basic operations of the structure.

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Also, for some algebras it makes sense to restrict the input to terms of a certain canonical form (for instance [18], [9] and [11] study the sum of monomials over rings); this is also something we are not considering here. For discussions on the size of term representation in supernilpotent algebras, see also [2].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, for some algebras it makes sense to restrict the input to terms of a certain canonical form (for instance [18], [9] and [11] study the sum of monomials over rings); this is also something we are not considering here. For discussions on the size of term representation in supernilpotent algebras, see also [2].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here a polynomial is encoded by a string defining it, which in a finite algebra is proportional to its length (see e.g. [AMO17] for a precise definition). We remark that in the literature one can also find other ways of encoding polynomials, which might result in different complexities (e.g.…”
Section: Preliminariesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If V is a variety with a Mal'tsev term, then k-supernilpotent algebras from V form a subvariety V s [3,Theorem 4.2]. An explicit set of identities axiomatizing V s relative to an axiomatization of V is known [3], but it is rather complicated, infinite, and unnatural in the context of groups and loops. Given a particular variety V, it is not clear from the general result of [3] whether a finite basis of V s exists.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An explicit set of identities axiomatizing V s relative to an axiomatization of V is known [3], but it is rather complicated, infinite, and unnatural in the context of groups and loops. Given a particular variety V, it is not clear from the general result of [3] whether a finite basis of V s exists. In groups, the question is of course settled by the equivalence of k-supernilpotence and k-nilpotence.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%